Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Anonimu

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Comments by uninvolved editors before the case was opened

[edit] Statement by Biophys

I had very little interaction with Anonimu. But he was often involved in RR warring with other users [1] [2] [3], and yes, he has very strong political convictions [4].Biophys (talk) 21:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Vecrumba

As long editors can discuss and conclude what most reputable sources say, articles can progress. When editors have excuses for why they have no sources, editorial debate and progress halt. Incivility only compounds the matter.

I asked Anonimu about his participation in this RfAr. Anonimu responded: that reputable sources "lie", that it's all "personal" (not about sources), that he has "answered all charges" in his RfC and will not participate. (My response)

Since Anonimu refuses next steps in dispute resolution and that the RfC stands as his answer to all charges, I respectfully request this action proceed to a conclusion. — PētersV (talk) 15:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Anonimu is aware of the request, see his notice deletion comment. PētersV (talk) 15:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Anonimu has indicated: As for your comment on the RfA, i didn't say i won't participate, just that i'll add my comments only if an ArbCom member wants a clarification of my position or one of my replies on the RfC. I see no other reasons to contribute to that discussion, since i'm not guilty of any charges.
   If Anonimu made an offer of responding for clarification, it was not in what I cited (earlier diff). PētersV (talk) 01:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response to Irpen

Once again Irpen advises ArbCom from his pedestal on high lecturing us from above. I'm sorry, but this sort of posturing advising ArbCom, at other times threatening editors with ArbCom action, makes it seem Irpen is more interested in conflict waging from the self-appointed superiorness of his position than contructively engaging with other editors. PētersV (talk) 04:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Which is unfortunate, given that Irpen also does a lot of good work. Lecturing is not appropriate, however. PētersV (talk) 04:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Advise to ArbCom by Irpen

This is a Eastern European wikipedia business as usual. Anonimu, an opinionated editor, has been hounded for a while by a bunch of equally opinionated users who are familiar to anyone editing the Wikipedia's EE sector. And I expect more to show up once my faithful shadows get to this case following my edits. And also, as usual, chances are high that after this case we are worse off than we were before it.

Whatever small the chance is for this to be any different this time, maybe such hypothetical possibility exists. I just request that before officially accepting the case arbitrators at least give some reasonable forethought to whether they can handle it in a way to not further undermine the community's respect to this institution as the ArbCom has thoroughly blew all the related cases in the past year. Can this be any different and does the ArbCom see a chance that this time it is able to deliver some remedies that have any reasonable chance to make things better, unlike the past ones when the ArbCom merely made them worse and undermined its authority in the eyes of community through impotent and incompetent decisions?

I am not saying that these kind of cases cannot be arbitrated in a way that could actually help but I am saying that ArbCom has repeatedly demonstrated its institutional inability to handle such cases in any way that would help to alleviate the problems, quite to the contrary.

This case is intimately related to three cases ArbCom handled this year: the Occupation of Latvia case, the Piotrus case and the Digwuren case. With the exception of the Digwuren's conduct, which was particularly grievous (still far from deserving a year long ban or any ban, just an editing restriction), all those cases are based on irreconcilable POV differences and the conduct of no party sufficiently violated policies to deserve an exceptional harsh remedy (I am not saying the conduct is exemplary either, but we are used to expect much worse to ArbCom users, except perhaps Digwuren who could have still been put under onerous restrictions rather than banned.) In all these cases some of the the parties with irreconcilable POV differences are mostly guilty of not blatant policy violations that amount for an ArbCom action but in generally dishonest editing, devious and unethical behavior, secretly teaming up into off-line coordinated nationalist leagues and unwillingness to compromise. The amount of bad blood that gets raised by nationalist disputes between countries in Eastern Europe is incredible and, ideally, something could (and should) be done about that. But it requires ArbCom's very careful consideration, vigorous involvement of Arbitrators with, if not all but at least, the reasonable parties and interest on behalf of the arbs to spend time on devising the unique remedies tailored to address these unique problems that plague this small sector of Wikipedia, the history of Eastern Europe.

Instead, as has been repeatedly shown in all those Eastern Europe related cases, arbitrators totally withdraw from the discussions, allowing the workshop to be buried in noise and trolling. With nothing useful being possibly able to come out of the workshop that deteriorates beyond the threshold in all those past cases, the arbitrators initially can't figure out what to do next and unwilling or unable to sort this out when it reaches the stage when sorting the workshop would require an amount of time that Arbitrators simply do not have, the arbcom allowed these cases to protract up to a degree when any more of non-action becomes untenable (arbcom has to move cases forward in order to maintain at least some respect in the eyes of the community) and then out of the blue same Kirill Lokshin comes up in all these cases with the proposed decision which is the combination of the useless and unenforceable "calls to all sides" combined with beheading of all involved parties (from both sides regardless of the actual guilt to demonstrate "even-handedness") and also beheading of a couple of witnesses (just to be safe I guess). This is usually followed by a short set of online and private exchanges between KL and some parties who find it fit to contact judges out of public view (I am not sure what effect it had but I know that such communication took place without rebuke.)

In the past I proposed one possible non-traditional remedy, perhaps better ones can be devised but ArbCom just should not take cases that, as we know from past history, are guaranteed to produce profoundly bad and harmful decisions. The best proof of that is that nothing changed from past decisions just more aggravation.

So, my message to Arbitrators is to please give it a little thought now and decide for themselves whether they are prepared to do something useful this time and this would require a sufficient time commitment, incredible patience and willingness to be flexible. If Arbitrators are not ready for this, too busy or expect that cases with more high-profile users and problems would again take up all their time, they are better off to leave things where they are rather than aggravate them further like they did three last times this year. --Irpen (talk)

[edit] Comments after opening the case

[edit] Statement by Vecrumba

On this and similar disputes regarding Eastern European articles being "based on irreconcilable POV differences". This is an oversimplification and, ultimately, a misrepresentation.
   One side contends the Baltics and Eastern Europe were not occupied, minimally that "occupation" and "invasion" are "judgemental" (per Irpen and others) terms, that even perfectly sourced articles fairly and accurately representing reputable sources are "cherry-picked" and "tendentiously" edited. Never producing reputable scholarship in support of their personal position (being characerized as an "editorial" one). Anonimu is but one such editor, but his editorial conduct has been among the least sourced and personally most disruptive.
   The other side contends that Soviet conduct in the Baltics and Eastern Europe was not not glorious. That 100,000,000 people were left to suffer for half a century under a blanket of brutal Soviet totalitarianism. Always producing sources, and producing even more sources when challenged.
   One side states "occupation" is merely a post-Cold War anti-Soviet (neo-Nazi) political manufacture, aka, "revisionist" history. The other side brings reputable sources to the table with factual accounts of Soviet conduct. Apparently reputable source can state "invaded" and "occupied", but we as editors are not to repeat those words here with regard to Eastern Europe so as to not offend a dead empire that sent tens of millions to their deaths. Or it is demanded we represent "both sides" equally in order for an article to be "NPOV" -- regardless that one side is totally discredited/unsourced (except for declarations with no substantive basis--for example, no one has yet produced a source substantiating the Russian Duma's claim that Latvia joined the Soviet Union "legally"), and the other side is voluminously and reputably sourced.
   Everywhere Wikipedia policy states that articles must be written based on reputable sources. Yet in the Baltic and Eastern European sphere, sources are apparently immaterial. Here, "nationalist" is not a term denoting patriotism or love and interest in one's heritage and history, it is a term of derision. Patriotism itself is scorned as an intellectually debased POV affliction and sources are denounced based merely on the surnames of authors. "NPOV" is giving Soviet propaganda equal time to reputable scholarship. I myself have been attacked in these sorts of proceedings for my "anti-Stalinist" user box (even though it specifically states I dispute Stalinism based on facts).
   This is not a "content dispute." This is not about "irreconcilable POVs" colliding. This is about permitting a community of motivated and knowledgeable editors to write about their heritage and history, filling a half-century gap of missing history, rectifying half a century of Soviet falsehoods. Or not. Wikipedia stands for editorial integrity or it stands for nothing. PētersV (talk) 03:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

What Irpen couches as constructive "advice to ArbCom" describing the editorial opposition "in generally dishonest editing, devious and unethical behavior, secretly teaming up into off-line coordinated nationalist leagues and unwillingness to compromise" is nothing more than smearing an entire community of editors en masse. Only in Baltic/Eastern European Wikipedia are editors with voluminous sources denounced as dishonest, while editors without sources to back their contentions present themselves as keepers of editorial integrity. —PētersV (talk) 22:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by Termer

[edit] Regarding Anonimu

hard to be missed user who fights for the history concept written by the Soviet sources before the Perestroika and glasnost era, before the time of reassessment and reevaluation of the history in the communist block in the end of 80's. Thats fine, I don't mind having an overview on WP how a totalitarian regime interpreted history. The problem is , the user doesn't respect alternative perspectives other than conservative Soviet communist, manipulates the edits made by his opponents instead of adding the POV he supports to the articles according to WP:NPOV. And first of all refuses to engage in constructive discussions. The user talk page speaks for itself.--Termer (talk) 06:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding Statement by Irpen

I have to disagree with all points made by Irpen since facts speak exact opposite. First of all the way ArbCom handled the Occupation of Latvia case was right on target. Since the decision to put the article on probation it has made a lot of progress because the disruptive editing was stopped, and the article itself has become probably one of the most stable B-Class articles on WP.

Digwuren case ended with a decision that was somewhat surprising but made the most sense. Even though the case was opened up against Digwuren, the fact that both User:Petri_Krohn and User:Digwuren were banned proved that the decision of ArbCom was based on actually looking into the case and acknowledging that the behavior of User:Digwuren was provoked and inspired by his primary opponent User:Petri_Krohn. Since both users were banned, the related articles again, have become stable. So the system works and I'm afraid, Irpen is mistaken--Termer (talk) 06:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Last but not leaset, I'd have to dismiss Irpens Essay proposed one possible non-traditional remedy entirely. There is WP:NPOV for the purposes that in case followed by the editors involved would solve all issues. According to the policy: The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly . But it seems the simple concept is so hard to understand since all the edit warrings, uncivility etc. the core of the problems surrounding the so called Eastern European articles is that certain editors do not respect the opposing POV-s and manipulate it instead of adding the one they support backed up by published sources.
Now, getting all the way back to User:Anonimu that was exactly the point I started with, meaning the user does not respect the opposing POV-s, keeps manipulating these instead of adding the POV he supports to the articles according to WP:NPOV.Thanks-Termer (talk) 20:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

PS. practical examples: after opposing POV-s were added side by side to Soviet occupation of Latvia in 1940, Estonian SSR, etc. the problem articles have been stable ever since. At the same time the articles where the opposing POV-s are not separated clearly, remain to be problem spots, the text gets wishy-washy due to "POV pushing" edit warrings, meaning manipulation of the existing POV instead of following the WP:NPOV by presenting each conflicting perspectives side by side -fairly.--Termer (talk) 20:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

PPS. here is an example of what I consider "no respect to an opposing POV". the fact that's based on Encyclopedia of Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity - Page 1056 ISBN 0028658485 : After recognition of the famine situation in Ukraine during the 1930-34 crop failure and dearth, the Soviet government in Moscow decided to export grain rather than retain its crop to feed the people gets moved away and manipulated into abstract meaningless phrase: Despite the crop failure, the grain exports continued even though on a significantly lower level.... This kind of move, this time done by User:Irpen is the core reason for all the edit warrings in related articles. It is due to manipulating the directly sourced and refed POV instead of adding an opposing perspective next to it. Now, in case you Irpen would like to put an end to the problems surrounding the Eastern European articles, please consider following the WP:NPOV, stop manipulating the POV-s you don't support, instead please add any POV-s you see fit to related articles. thanks!--Termer (talk) 21:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anonimu blocked

I have blocked Anonimu indefinitely after another AN/I post. I am aware that an Arbcom case is going on, and I also when behaviour is becoming ridiculously disruptive. The reason in the backlog is "Personal attacks, persistent BLP vios, edit warring, harassing other users, using the encyclopedia as a battleground". Feel free to discuss this action, but I'd really prefer no unilateral overturns of this block without a consensus or at least some discussion. Doing that will cause even more drama, and we've got enough. Maxim(talk) 02:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

If it's not an indefinite block, I don't support it. Well done. —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  02:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The relevant ANI thread is Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Personal_attacks_by_User:Anonimu. Neil ☎ 10:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)